On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Saying you're for "civil union" but not "marriage" is an admission that
> you're going for a second-class institution. Press people on why they
> make the distinction and the hem and haw and can't answer because they
> can't bring themselves to admit to a prejudice.
I'm not positive that's always true. I think many people think the term "marriage" is indissolubly religious -- and that arguing them out of it by logic as you seem to suggest is a mug's game -- they hem and haw because they know it's illogical but they still feel it. I think if the left were to make your argument we'd have the familar pleasure of being right and being outvoted because we pissed the majority off. Making people feel stupid wins no converts.
Don't you think we could get farther by simply driving a truck through the loophole that's already open? All we would have to do is insist on a simple definition of civil union, to wit, that a spouse by civil union has all the rights given to a spouse by marriage in all federal and state law. And pushing for an act of Congress -- hell, we can put it in the same amendment, which will allow us to say we're for the amendment -- that henceforth, every state sanctioned "civil union" must live up to this standard, and anything that doesn't must be called something else.
Taking action at a federal level would also ensure that it included the right to give your spouse and children your nationality.
I think that would work a lot better politically. It's active, it's aggressive, and it goes with the grain of prejudice in a kind of judo effect rather than just spitting in their eye. Instead of trying to get spineless Dems to say they are for gay marraige, we should get them to define what they mean by civil union. The code phrase for our kind would be that it includes "all the rights of marriage."
And lastly, to remove all stigma and plant it firmly in the law, we should encourage heterosexuals to get them.
Michael